Search Box

Sunday, May 18, 2014

One-sided protests

It seems that every time a speaker is prevented from giving a speech on a college campus, it's always a conservative figure.

Most recently, Condoleeza Rice was prevented from speaking at the Rutgers University commencement. The students objected to the fact that as National Security Adviser and then Secretary of State under George W. Bush, Rice sanctioned the Iraq War.

Last fall, Ray Kelly, former head of the NYPD, was shouted down and now allowed to speak by student protesters who objected to the stop and frisk policy he oversaw. That policy drove down the murder rate in New York considerably, but liberals felt it targeted blacks and Hispanics unfairly.

Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, was prevented from speaking at Azusa Pacific University after students protested.

These are many more examples of how leftists have prevented free speech on campuses.

In the meantime, President Obama has given several commencement speeches at colleges. Obama has overseen a drone program which has killed more than three hundred innocent children, which is surely a larger crime than instituting a stop and frisk program whose aim was to get illegal guns off the streets, or writing a book which mentions the racial gap in IQ. Yet no one seems to prevent Obama from speaking.

Might this possibly be because the leftists on campus know that the war criminal Obama is one of them?

11 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Condoleezza Rice is far more reasonable than the liberals realise. She may have worked closely with Bush, but she isn't like him in her attitude towards certain minorities. There was one biology professor - Joan Roughgarden - who worked for Rice, and feared that she would be fired because she was coming out as transgender. It turns out that Rice not only allowed her to stay at the university, but was actually supportive. Maybe if liberals gave people like Rice a chance to speak, they'd realise that they're far more reasonable than previously imagined.

Gethin --It's the liberals who generally aren't reasonable. They're hypocritical (appointed out in this post), dogmatic, and generally accuse the other side of all of their own traits (being "haters," liars, etc.).

Rice may be particularly flexible on issues of sexuality since she herself is almost undoubtedly a lesbian.

I wonder if the same students would have protested Hillary Clinton. She also promoted war with Iraq, as did her husband. Not only did Hillary vote to use military force against Iraq, she supported the surge and has been a strong advocate for using military force against multiple nations

It does not bother me when students protest against certain speakers, but it upsets me that their targets are always Republicans. If Condi Rice was a democrat, they would never have protested. As Hillary Clinton has advocated for the exact same policies as Rice.

Jova --Thank you, great point about Hillary. Agreed, student protesters have selective outrage over politicians. It's as if they decide they don't like someone (on the basis of political affiliation), then find something to protest about them.

What of it? What is the point in even speaking to such people? Our universities are about indoctrination - not education. They won't listen. It would be like sending Einstein to explain 'Jewish Physics' to eugenics scientists in Nazi Germany. Those minds are firmly closed and nothing short of reality will open them again.

True, whatever Rice would have said to the students and professors who protested her appearance would not have done anting to change their inflexible inds in the least. But it's still worth pointing out the hypocrisy of students who will only protest Republican and not Democratic speakers, no matter how egregious the sins of the Dems.

Another point: it only seems to take a small minority of students to protest in order to prevent a speaker from appearing. My guess is that the vast majority of students would have had no objection to her. They should institute a rule, that the students be allowed to vote on a speaker, rather than let a noisy minority dictate who is and isn't acceptable.

I unfortunately disagree, John. If you or I accused the other of hypocrisy and could back it up - that would alter our stances or at least the way we approach our arguments and viewpoints.

The universities are cranking out leftist morons that don't have the ability or the need for logic. Their causes are "just too important" to be bogged down by minor 'talking points' that conservatives like us might offer up. In fact, their agenda is so important that they feel perfectly justified in doing away with free speech, imposing censorship, undermining the second amendment, etc.

I don't argue with leftists anymore. They aren't worth the effort, and all that happens when you win a debate with them is that their feelings get hurt. Then they scream about how offended they are.

Glen --I wasn't suggesting that pointing out the double standard to liberals will convince them of their hypocrisy, just that it's worth pointing out in general. I don't think this blog will sway any hardcore leftists, but I hope it will have some effect on those who are sitting on the fence.

What I try to do when I talk to leftists these days is just "innocently" ask questions until their hypocrisy becomes evident. But I agree that most of them are very rigid in their thinking.

I love the PJ O'Rourke speech and I am about to pony up 63K next year for a freshman. Yikes

But I do think his point is also that an education that teaches one to think ( vs Fitness studies) is valuable .Didn't one of those harvard guys say something along the lines of if you think education is expensive try ignorance

About Me

Virtually everyone who knows John finds him completely tactless and insufferably opinionated. He sees himself as refreshingly honest. That said, this blog is still an excellent way to kill time while putting off work. If you're a newcomer, you might find browsing through the older posts an amusing waste of time as well.